bush visit 2006

Translation of the Interview with President George W. Bush and Handelsblatt

Published in the Handelsblatt
July 12, 2006

George W. Bush: Prior to his Germany visit the U.S. President praises the foreign policy of the Chancellor, calls for a new energy mix, and emphasizes diplomacy in the difficult negotiations with Iran and North Korea.

“Merkel Takes Mantle of Leadership”

Handelsblatt: Mr. President, German−American relations have improved since Angela Merkel became Chancellor. With Silvio Berlusconi now out of office and Tony Blair's days numbered, has Germany become America's most important ally in Europe?

Bush: Of course, we had disagreements over the Iraq War. Much has been written about the differences between Chancellor Schröder and myself. We both tried to work beyond that. I always felt our relationship with Germany was vital and important. Remember, one of the first decisions I made after 9/11 was to go into Afghanistan. The Germans supported us.

So no Merkel “bounce” in the transatlantic relationship?

Angela Merkel came into office at a time when we had already put the disagreement over Iraq behind us. We’re now moving ahead together. I'm very much looking forward to seeing her on Thursday in Stralsund. I always view that as a sign of generous hospitality, when somebody says, come by my home area. I’ve spoken frequently with the Chancellor since she took office. Germany has a very important role to play in Europe and in the world. And Angela Merkel is assuming the mantle of leadership, for which I'm grateful.

America does not need good relations just with Germany. Europe is a vital center of trade — and I hope a central partner in spreading common values.

Not everybody looks at it this way. The new Italian Foreign Minister D'Alema, recently emphasized the "evident differences” between his government and the U.S. Are you disappointed by that?

First of all, I want to thank the Italian people and the previous government for their contributions in Iraq. The Italians kept their word in difficult times. The current government campaigned on not staying in Iraq. So I'm not surprised that they are fulfilling their campaign promise. But I will be sending the message to people at the G-8 that the idea of liberty is universal; the world is better off the more free societies there are. We would hope that established democracies would help young democracies grow, and there are all kinds of ways you can do that. Of course, there are differences of opinion as to whether or not we should have gone into Iraq. The hope is that we can work with other nations to help build the new Iraqi democracy.

How would you describe your relationship to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, the host of the G-8 summit?

My wife Laura and I have a good friendship with the Putins. We're comfortable around them. I've spoken to Putin frequently over the last two weeks on a variety of subjects. And the world is complex. There are problems that are surfacing. I've always felt that it's best to work with friends and allies to solve difficult problems.

Twenty-five percent of Europe's natural gas is supplied by Russia. In the case of Germany, it's more than one-third. Is Europe too dependent on Russia for its energy?

I think each nation or each group of nations has to make their own energy security calculations. And so the German government is going to have to make its own decision as to whether or not it makes sense to have one-third of its supply from a single source.

Some even fear that Russia potentially would be able to politically blackmail Europe.

In the U.S. there is less worry about this. But Europeans need to think about how they can ensure that nobody will change the equation.

What is your suggestion?

I think in general we are too dependent on oil from, in some cases, unstable parts of the world. This may work in the short-term, but in the long-term, eventually, it is a problem for national energy security in America. I see the only solution as being diversification away from fossil fuels. I think the whole world would be better off.

In which direction should this go?

At the G-8 summit we will discuss how to further the development of new car batteries. The plan would be to have cars that do not need gasoline for the first 60 to 70 kilometers. The use of ethanol or hydrogen is also possible. I have told the American people we will spend billions to put new technology in place or achieve technological breakthroughs that will enable future Presidents to say, I no longer have to worry about a single source of supply. In America we are spending over a billion dollars on hydrogen technologies. I think the world should be moving in this direction.

Which role does civilian nuclear power play in this energy mix?

It is interesting that you can achieve national and economic security and protect the environment at the same time. Civilian nuclear energy is an important topic in light of the concern over global warming. If you are truly concerned about protecting the environment, then it seems to me that civilian nuclear power is a good way to go. It is a policy choice countries are going to have to make.

Is this also true for energy-hungry countries like China and India?

Of course. We are working with India and China on this question. It is in everybody's interest that the appetite for hydrocarbons in these growing economies is lessened with the advent of nuclear power. This is generally true for developing countries. We are working with Japan, Russia, France, and Great Britain to spend more money to come up with a fast breeder reactor program. With these reactors, nuclear waste can be reprocessed, burned, and then the amount of waste can be reduced. We are hoping that this will make the idea of additional civilian nuclear power in other countries more politically palatable.

Back to Russia – Do you expect agreement among the G-8 members over Moscow’s membership in the WTO?

I do believe it is in America’s interest to have Russia as a member of the WTO. It's been a difficult negotiation because there are several interested parties. For example, in the U.S., Congress has to agree to Russian WTO accession. Agriculture is playing a big role. The people want to make sure that U.S. products will have access to the Russian market. The second important issue is intellectual property rights. I'm optimistic that we will find a solution.

Why are you supporting NATO accession of Georgia, a country with massive ethnic conflicts?

I think it is in the world's interest that there are peaceful resolutions to those conflicts. It would be in NATO's interest to welcome countries that adhere to the rule of law and marketplace economics, a country that is a democracy, a country that allows public dissent and a free press. I think those are all wonderful values. They will benefit NATO with the incorporation of a country like Georgia. The Caucasian republic should at least have the prospect of joining NATO.

If Iran is unwilling in the next few days to declare that it will at least freeze its controversial uranium enrichment program, which sanctions is your government envisioning?

Let me first say that Germany made a great contribution in the negotiations with Iran. I am very grateful for the strong position of the Chancellor. Diplomacy is constant work, constant dialogue, and constant discussion. We always need to remind people that we are agreed on the common goal: Iran should not have any nuclear weapons.

How do you plan to get China and Russia, which have so far blocked any discussion of sanctions, on board?

Everybody has different interests and is under different kinds of pressure. Negotiations take time. But the world is watching diplomacy in action. We will work quietly with our friends to diplomatically resolve this issue. It is important that we speak with one voice. If the Iranians will not provide a positive answer, we will react.

You also want to use diplomatic pressure to prevent Pyongyang from developing a nuclear weapons arsenal. How can Pyongyang be lured back to the six-party talks?

Let me first thank Japan for its contribution in the UN Security Council. The government in Tokyo delayed a request for a UN resolution to give the Chinese the opportunity to talk with the North Koreans. The option of a resolution in the Security Council will not go away. At the moment the strategy is to give priority to Beijing’s shuttle diplomacy.

Do you still think you can rein in the North Korean head of state, Kim Jong-il, or are you left with regime change in the end?

In the past the U.S. tried to find a bilateral solution with Kim Jong-il, without success. That is why I changed our approach. Now it is not only the U.S. dealing with North Korea, but also Japan, South Korea, Russia, and China. I think it is more likely to work.